The main person responsible takes the floor. In the “financial perspectives 2014-2020” dossier, which is now at the centre of Community activities, where it will remain for quite some time (see this section yesterday), the European Parliament is playing an entirely specific role. Not just because its consensus is required for these “perspectives” to be approved, but because the EP has been one of the major players, from the very beginning. It does not wait for every detail to be defined before taking position; it takes part in the negotiations and is the contact point on a day-to-day basis for the national parliaments of the member states, whose role mainly comprises the “income” plank. This section would therefore like to throw open the floor for Alain Lamassoure, chair of the budgets committee of the European Parliament, to answer our questions (our translation throughout).
The interview. What are the significance and objectives of the European Parliament's active involvement in defining the new financial perspectives?
If we stick to the letter of the Treaty, the negotiations would take place mainly between the heads of government, with little or no parliamentary involvement. The European Parliament would issue a single, global vote, and the national parliaments would be consulted only for the income section, right at the end of the procedure, to ratify or to reject, with no option to amend, the new resources on which the governments would have by then agreed unanimously. This situation was not acceptable. The obligatory coordination of the budgetary policies makes parliamentary involvement in the debates, at European and at national level, more vital than ever.
How is the EP's active involvement working in the major negotiations which are underway?
The Parliament has been given leave to be involved in the negotiations as of day one. Basically, before each meeting of the Council of General Affairs Ministers featuring the financial perspectives on the agenda, a delegation of the Parliament meets the trio of Presidencies of the Council to hold an exchange of views ahead of the Council's discussions. For this first six months of 2012, it is the Danish minister, flanked by his Polish and Cypriot counterparts, who meets the Parliament's delegation. I am the chair of the delegation, in my capacity as chair of the budgets committee, and I am accompanied by rapporteurs. In order to get the main groups involved in the negotiations, we have appointed two co-rapporteurs for expenditure, Reimer Böge (EPP, Germany) and Ivalo Kalfin (S&D, Bulgaria), and two co-rapporteurs for income: Jean-Luc Dehaene (EPP, Belgium) and Anne Jensen (ALDE, Denmark). The commissioner with responsibility for the budget also attends the meeting. The Presidency then meets us again after the Council meeting, for a debriefing. We have already held a good half-dozen meetings since the very beginning, on 12 October last year.
In this context, what are the key orientations of the European Parliament?
The first principle is that the results of the current negotiations should cover not only expenditure, but also income. The issue of European own resources is just as vital as how the budget is used. The EU should have a proper budget, in expenditure and income! The Commission has made its proposals: one percentage point of VAT, the financial transaction tax, etc. But for income, the ratification of all of the national parliaments is essential. This is the first reason the European Parliament has taken concrete initiatives to allow the national parliaments to be involved in this work.
This involvement of the national parliaments, how does that work?
Organising it and making it a reality was our first concern. In October last year, we held a “budgetary conference”, with the involvement of the parliaments of the member states. For the first time, the elected representatives of all the people of Europe got together and discussed the funding of European policies. And this dialogue needs to be permanent, because taxation sovereignty remains national. The parliaments of the member states are directly involved, in both senses. The costs and the advantages.
Which means?
Logically, these parliaments are in charge of the national budgets; they should also be kept abreast of the positive and beneficial effects of Community expenditure. Europe is seen in some quarters as a source of additional expenditure, even though in many cases it is a source of massive savings to be tapped into! If the principle of subsidiarity is fully applied, €1 spent in Brussels can, in certain cases, mean €27 saved in the member states! Added together, the diplomatic services of the 27 member states employee 94,000 agents, whereas the United States has just 28,000. Despite these gaps (which we are currently putting right), the European External Action Service can allow savings in the order of hundreds of millions of euros to be made, even though the member states keep a reasonable level of national diplomacy, as you would expect. Since Schengen has been in place, what is the point of having several consulates in the same cities in third countries? In many areas, we complicate matters, we spend, we waste. In the field of development aid, efforts are duplicated, or are too thin on the ground, there are contradictions and therefore waste, and in some cases, doubtful efficiency. And we should also look at the field of defence…
To what purpose?
The field of defence is a massive source of potential savings. In every country, military expenditure is the first thing to be targeted by budget reductions: cuts are made everywhere, with the risk of ending up with 27 “mini armies”. We should get together round the table to divide up our military and industrial resources and together assure the security of the continent, at a cost well below the sum total of the current national budgets. This is not a change that can be improvised, but France and the UK set the example by signing the Lancaster House agreement in late 2010.
Why do you feel that the “expenses” plank and the “income” plank are so closely linked?
The Treaty of Lisbon widely extended the competences of the Union: foreign policy, immigration, energy, space industry, etc. But the member states are not currently in a position to be able to increase their national contribution to the Community budget. In the absence of own resources, Europe cannot deal with its needs and ambitions. Obviously, at the same time this will require the maximum amount of wisdom and controls on joint expenses.
Such as?
A vital part of the budget is earmarked for the cohesion policy. This has allowed many of the poorer regions to catch up with the others, and constitutes one of the great successes of European integration; however, the unevenness of the results, according to the beneficiary countries, should lead to a better management of this money. Coming out of the “debt crisis” in the member states can be done both by making major cuts in operating expenditure and by keeping future expenditure in place to boost growth and competitiveness. This is the responsibility of the member states just as much as it is of the EU as a whole. This also includes institutional requirements at the same time.
Could you give us a few examples?
First and foremost, the involvement of the national parliaments in management is becoming a major democratic requirement and it is possible largely through the mediation of the European Parliament. In practice, the national parliaments have a right of scrutiny of Community legislation and they sometimes make a contribution to improving it. But each of these parliaments works essentially on its own behalf, in isolation. Joint meetings between them and with the European Parliament allow each one to take account of the stances of the others, to the advantage of everyone. The Committee of the Regions also helps towards this goal by taking concrete action with the national governments.
Cooperation to be extended and developed, for a more effective Europe
When invited to draw an overall conclusion from the above considerations, Mr Lamassoure replied:
“The involvement of the national parliaments in the financial perspectives 2014-2020 is indispensable, for the very simple reason already given: the future income of the EU will have to be ratified by all of these parliaments. Given the institutional revolution of the EU, with the growing role of the heads of state and government, I wonder whether it would be the right time to extend cooperation between the EP and the national parliaments to other sensitive areas in which competence is shared between the Union and the member states. For example: decisions taken recently by Germany in the field of energy will have an influence on the whole of the EU. In cases of this kind, including the functioning of Schengen, why not bring together, to discuss the matter together, the MEPs in charge of the sector in question, the national MPs and the European Commission? Instead of - on some occasions - getting stuck into sterile polemic, with overtones of an outdated kind of nationalism?”
(transl.fl)